That makes sense to me, and, as you point out, there's also a lot to be said for wanting to simplify to a level suitable for the target audience without deliberately introducing errors.
Unfortunately in practice, at one extreme, some people might struggle to put together a single sentence, and it might still be full of errors (such as mhz instead of MHz). I don't think anyone minds correcting things, it's no trouble for people (themselves or others) to hit the reply button and correct wrong assumptions or to add more details in areas they think they can assist in. That's how lots of information is discovered; people might not realize they are working on an assumption, and it takes others to point it out, and readers benefit from the discussion.
I should add, what's wrong is to deliberately reprimand or ridicule people for an honestly held opinion. In any case, Siwastaja didn't eat his own dogfood by keeping things concise. Instead, he resorted to untechnical, emotional terms like "beloved ratchet". On the other hand, maybe English isn't his first language, and he didn't realize how typical native English readers can interpret that. It cannot be expected for people to be language/grammar experts before they contribute to a forum conversation; people get things wrong.
Perhaps a slightly more ideal response to the OP would have been that the PAD tools are unlikely to be suitable for automotive use, and that attention should be directed to tools that can apply sufficient force, and they are typically likely to be (but not exclusively) ratchet-based tools, and [optional] here's the reason why....<xyz>". The xyz has been brought out in the longer discussion, by those who were able to better describe it.